Typical Texas Scenario Roadside Drug Investigation Requires Miranda Rights


 

Today the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in Austin held in a cocaine trafficking case that went up to the Court through the Seventh Texas Court of Appeals at Amarillo that the Lubbock County Sheriff's Office violated the defendant's rights by questioning him during a roadside traffic stop without reading him his Miranda rights.* Since the unsophisticated defendant was not warned that he had the right to remain silent, he admitted that he and his wife were in possession of cocaine.

The police have to provide Miranda warnings only when they "interrogate" somebody who is in "custody." The question in today's case was whether the defendant was in "custody," which does not necessarily require someone to be under arrest. Drug crimes lawyer in Georgia. A detention during a roadside investigation or similar circumstances can amount to a custodial situation.

The Court of Criminal Appeals held that the defendant was in custody at the time of his incriminating statements because the officer had expressed suspicion that the defendant had drugs in his possession, there were additional law enforcement officers that had arrived at the scene, the defendant and his passenger/wife were handcuffed, and the officers clearly expressed their belief that the defendant was connected to illegal activity.

The Court applied the traditional considerations for deciding whether someone was in "custody:" (1) whether the suspect was physically deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way, (2) whether a law enforcement officer told the suspect that he could not leave, (3) whether law enforcement officers created a situation that would lead a reasonable person to believe that his freedom of movement has been significantly restricted, and (4) whether there was probable cause to arrest and law enforcement officers did not tell the suspect that he is free to leave. ======

*In addition to the right to remain silent, the warnings required under Miranda v. Arizona include information that any statement a defendant makes may be used as evidence against him in court, that he has the right to have a lawyer present to advise him prior to and during any questioning, and that if he is unable to employ a lawyer, he has the right to have a lawyer appointed to advise him prior to and during any questioning. Texas has codified these rights, and added a fifth essential warning: a suspect be informed that he has the right to terminate an interview at any time.

Комментарии

Отправить комментарий

Популярные сообщения из этого блога

CRIMINAL APPEALS COURT REMINDS OFFICERS THAT THEY CANNOT STAY FOR DINNER AFTER ASKED TO LEAVE

Изображение
  The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals addressed a situation last week that I have seen come up in Dallas County drug cases more than once: what do the police have to do when somebody lets the police come into their home but then changes their mind? The case went to the Court of Criminal Appeals from the San Antonio Court of Appeals, with the case originating from Kerrville. The defendant was charged with methamphetamine possession. When deputy sheriffs responded to a disturbance call at her apartment, the defendant answered the door, and she appeared intoxicated and distraught. The officers asked to go inside, and the defendant agreed. While waiting on a warrant check, the defendant changed her mind about letting the police in and asked them to leave. The officers ignored her request because they wanted the warrant check to came back before they decided to leave. Lawyer office in Georgia . While waiting, the officers saw evidence of drug use, and the defendant shortly thereafter admit
Далее...

TEXAS LAW BOND CONSIDERATIONS APPLY IN DALLAS COURTS

Изображение
 Issues concerning the defendant's right to a bond and the amount of the bond are often contested after an arrest in Dallas County. Both the federal and state constitutions, and specific Texas law, prohibit excessive bail. A hearing can be held, and if the defendant can appeal if he believes that the bond is set too high in violation of his rights. In setting the amount of bail, a court should consider factors such as: (1) the defendant's work record; (2) the defendant's family and community ties; (3) the defendant's length of residency; (4) the defendant's prior criminal record; (5) the existence of other outstanding bonds, if any; and (6) any aggravating circumstances alleged to have been involved in the charged offense. The primary purpose of an appearance bond is to secure the presence of the accused at trial on the offense charged. Lawyer office in Georgia . The amount of bail must be high enough to give reasonable assurance that the accused will appear as req
Далее...

HOUSTON COURT OF APPEALS BLAMES DEFENDANT FOR TEXAS ATTORNEY'S FAILURE TO PROVIDE IMMIGRATION WARNINGS

Изображение
 Because it affects so many resident aliens and other immigrants in the process of becoming citizens in Dallas and other metropolitan parts of Texas, I have been keeping my eye closely on ongoing developments in Texas applying the Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Padilla v. Kentucky. In Padilla, the Supreme Court held that defense lawyers have a duty under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution to accurately and specifically advise a defendant about deportation and other immigration consequences that will result from a guilty plea. Lawyer office in Georgia . A defendant will plead guilty either under an "open" guilty plea to a judge or jury, where the punishment is left to the judge or jury, or in a situation involving a plea bargain, a more common scenario. The case law says that, whenever a defendant pleads guilty and waives his rights, the defendant has to be informed about immigration consequences in terms that are "succinct, clear and specific.&qu
Далее...